Chamber and committees

I am happy to share that correspondence. There is nothing to hide: it is what I have just explained. We want to be absolutely transparent about this and keep the committee updated. I am happy to share the correspondence and I am sure that when you have the DWP minister in front of you, you will be able to ask her similar questions.

I think that we are in the same area as I have just described. The Scottish assessment criteria have been widely welcomed because of the different assessment processes. In fact, I think that it was put forward to the Work and Pensions Committee at Westminster that the Scottish assessment criteria are a good model to look at. That shows that it will be a very different experience, which, in turn, is likely to lead to more people claiming those benefits who might have been put off previously. People still need to meet the criteria, but the look and feel of the benefit and the way that Social Security Scotland will operate will inevitably lead to more people applying. I think that that is why the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made that assessment.

Emma Roddick will not get any argument from me on that. Clearly, it would be much easier if social security across all benefits were devolved to Scotland. That would be simple and straightforward compared with the hybrid system that we have, and it would allow us to join the dots across all benefits far better.

For example, one of the issues in negotiation for the future, with the review of the ADP, is the impact on passported benefits. That will require agreement with the UK Government in order to ensure that future changes to the ADP do not impact on passported benefits. How much simpler it would be if we had all the benefits under Scottish Government control. The direction of travel would be that decisions could be made here in Scotland to best meet the needs of the population here.

We have raised that at meetings with the previous and current UK ministers. Ben Macpherson, the Minister for Social Security and Local Government, has also done so. We have also agreed that the mobility element review will start earlier than the wider review of the ADP. We have flagged up with the DWP that it is important that we get agreement that changes that it makes will not impact on passported benefits. We have put that marker down and have said that we want further discussions. I think that the DWP has recognised that. At this stage, we do not have agreement on passported benefits, but we have clearly flagged that as an issue on which we will need more detailed discussions.

I am certainly happy to write to the committee with more detail around this, but the overall direction of travel is to make all homes barrier free, and there are standards for new housing that will help to deliver that. We have been supporting registered social landlords and local authorities on retrofitting and aids and adaptations. On the local needs assessment, it is important that local authorities report back regularly to us about the levels of accessible housing in their areas.

There is more that we need to do, though. The media interview that I did was on the back of a quite challenging case of someone with very complex needs. At the moment, I am not sure that our systems provide for those who have particularly complex needs and who need bespoke solutions. We have systems of aids and adaptations that can be made to existing housing for those whose mobility changes over time. With new stock there are higher standards on accessibility and being barrier free.

However, there are people who have particular complex needs that require a bespoke solution and I am not sure that we have that quite right yet. One of the commitments that I have made—and I have asked officials to do this—is to look at how we can do more to help to resolve those very complex cases and support local authorities and RSLs to do that. I am happy to come back to the committee with more information about that if you would find it helpful.

It is not just the Scottish Government that needs to play its part. The UK Government needs to play its part as well. We have talked about the mitigation that we have had to spend money on. The example that I used earlier was that, if the UK Government would scrap the bedroom tax, we would not have to spend £80 million on discretionary housing payments. That money could be spent elsewhere.

Councils are really important partners. We have a partnership with local government and a key priority is to tackle child poverty. A lot of the money that we are talking about is routed through local government, such as the money for the attainment challenge and early learning and childcare, which is a crucial element.

With our partners in local government, we will keep a firm focus on tackling child poverty and trying to wrap around families. If we consider the six priority family types, I think that we need to get far closer to supporting and working with families on what they need to make the difference. That will include the support that we provide through social security and the child payment, which is obviously important, but it may also include the employability programmes. Would wraparound childcare for families make the difference, enabling them to secure fair paid work and removing the barriers that prevent them from doing that at the moment? It is about looking at how we support them, and a lot of that will come through the child poverty delivery plan that we will produce in March.

Employers are really important. If we can get more employers paying the living wage, paying fairly and signing up to fair work, that will clearly help to tackle child poverty. We know that decent paid work is still the key way out of child poverty and poverty for families, so employers have a big job in making sure that they pay at least the living wage.

We will explore many of those aspects as we go forward. We have been trying to engage with employers on what more they can do. There are some good examples of employers going the extra mile in supporting their employees and we want to work with them as exemplars of what other employers could do to play their part.

Let me try to be as brief as possible on a very complex issue and say some key things. First, the safe and secure transfer of people on benefits, who rely on that money, to the adult disability payment is critical. The committee is well aware of that. It is well aware of the view of the Scottish Commission on Social Security and the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group of the need to make sure that people’s payments are not jeopardised in any way.

Secondly, there will be a lot of changes in the way in which people are treated and the way in which they experience the system. The look and feel of the Scottish assessment criteria have been widely welcomed and, as I mentioned, the Westminster committee has been given those by the sector organisation as a template to look at.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s projection of an increase in expenditure on the adult disability payment, based on its assessment that more people will apply and more people will get the benefit, suggests that that will be a major improvement and more people will get the support that they require than do at the moment.

In recognition of some of the issues that Pam Duncan-Glancy has raised, we have been clear right from the start that there is a need to review the adult disability payment. That has been scheduled for a year after the safe and secure transfer. Also, the mobility descriptor element of ADP will be turbocharged as part of the review, and that will start this year.

As Pam Duncan-Glancy recognises—as I know the committee does—the complexity of this also involves the DWP. Any changes that we propose to make after that review will be with the full involvement of stakeholders and of course, as you would expect, we need to make sure that the DWP will not remove people’s passported benefits, because the agreement with the DWP at the moment is on a like-for-like benefit. Although all the improvements will be made, there has to be equivalence in order to maintain those passported benefits until we get agreement from the DWP. Any persuasion that can be put to the DWP will be welcome—I know that you will have the minister from the DWP in front of you, and that will be an important question for them. We need to make sure that we have the scope to be able to make the changes that we want to make.

I have tried to condense what is a very complex area into some of the key issues that need to be considered here.

There are certainly pressures on the Scottish Government budget and difficult choices have to be made. We are continuing to mitigate the UK Government’s decisions. That means that there is less money to go elsewhere, which is a challenge. For example, on the bedroom tax, £80 million goes to discretionary housing payments. It would have been much better if the bedroom tax had been scrapped. The £80 million that we have to put into discretionary housing payments could then have been spent on other areas and other priorities. These are difficult choices and we cannot mitigate everything—that is just not possible. We will continue to do what we can to support low-income households as best we can.

I agree. The Scottish Fiscal Commission is projecting that, because of the difference in approach to the adult disability payment, more people will apply for it. The largest component of the divergence is the adult disability payment forecast, where improvements to application, review and appeals processes will remove barriers and are expected to result in more successful applications. The Fiscal Commission estimates overall additional spending of £37 million in 2022-23, rising to £527 million in 2026-27. Those costs represent the additional investment that we are making as a result of our approach to disability benefits. There is no funding for that from block grant adjustments, but it is the right thing to do. We believe that the system will look and feel a lot different for people who are on disability benefits from how the current system looks and feels.

I will respond to that in a bit of detail, because it is important. Yes, I am confident, but it will take both Governments to help deliver that. I will come on to say a little bit about why that is important.

On 5 January, the Minister for Social Security and Local Government, Ben Macpherson, wrote to the UK Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, Chloe Smith, stressing the Scottish Government’s commitment to rolling out the Scottish child payment to under-16s by the end of 2022. He outlined the joint commitment of both Governments and the on-going joint programme of work, stressing the risks involved in the Department for Work and Pensions approach and seeking further assurances around timescales.

The Scottish Government made the Department for Work and Pensions aware of our Scottish child payment delivery intentions back in July 2019, following the finalisation of an impact paper. The DWP has had quite a bit of notice of our intention. There have been negotiations between the Scottish Government and the DWP to solve the data issues and I am pleased to say that a joint delivery plan is in place.

The DWP’s project documentation from August 2019 includes a list of the Scottish Government’s high-level data requirements, plus assumptions and risks. In addition to the normal project management processes, the Scottish Government and DWP senior officials have committed to a series of additional assessments of progress against intended delivery at pre-agreed junctures from January to March. That is important, because if it becomes clear at one of those critical checkpoints that there is a risk to successful delivery, a joint assessment will be undertaken and action taken to mitigate that risk.

As I am sure that you are aware, there have been negotiations between the Scottish Government and the DWP to resolve the data issues. All that I will say about that is that the Scottish Government’s preferred solution has not been agreed and, therefore, we had quite reluctantly to agree to the DWP’s preferred solution, which carries a higher risk. That is why the Scottish Government sought a letter of comfort from the DWP acknowledging that to be the case.

Our preference has consistently been to extend the existing systems that we have in place for the Scottish child payment, but the DWP’s position is that we should build on the DWP’s new strategic solution. That carries a higher degree of risk, but we have mechanisms in place to monitor that risk. I am sure that we could keep the committee apprised of the progress being made on the resolution of the data solutions. To be blunt, convener, we cannot do this without the data from the DWP; it is critical to being able to roll out the Scottish child payment by the end of this year, so it has to happen. From our end, I am happy to keep the committee apprised of progress.